Santu De Silva wrote:

>When an orchestra makes a recording, are they paid a one-time payment, or
>does the deal involve royalties? Surely their recordings continue to sell;
>there must be a steady income from it.  If their recordings do not sell, or
>have stopped being marketed by the publisher--Sony and RCA, at least-- then
>the pHilly should be able to sue for marketing rights, and sell their own
>recordings on the web, at the very least.
>
>It's sad to think that music converts are buying Philadelphia recordings
>out there every day, and the Phildelphia Orchestra gets no royalties from
>it.  (Or perhaps it's the actual participants in the original recording
>that get royalties, and not the orchestra organization as such?)

You have it in reverse.  According to Henry Fogel, of the CSO, the way
it works is like this.  At the time of the recording the musicians get
paid.  Royalties go to the orchestral association (i.e.  the Philadelphia
Orchestra, CSO), not to the musicians.  In many cases, royalties are in
perpertuity if their contract is negotiated as such.  Any time a recording
is re-issued, the orchestra is supposed to get royalties on any sales.
Witness the case of Michael Jackson and EPIC being sued by the Cleveland
Orchestra to collect royalties when part of their Beethoven 9th (orginally
recorded on EPIC some 30 years previously) was used on one of his albums.

I imagine that pirating also cuts into the orchestra's royalities.  While
the company owning the rights even out of copyright must pay royalties,
the pirates don't.  I think that's why some orchestras like the BSO clamped
down on pirates under copyright to protect their claims on the rights.  Of
course, in Europe, the copyright laws are different making it harder to
sue.

Aloha and Mahalo,

Eric Nagamine